Scott Leibrand wrote:
[ snip ]
>>> I'm not convinced that we want to inject PPML into the process in-line.
>>> Given that the current policy process cycle is about 6 months, I'm not
>>> sure if we could do an [expedited pace] that would actually be faster
>>> than waiting the 3 months...
>>>>> The way I see it, the only way to present something to the entire
>> community is via the PPML. Unfortunately, I haven't found any method
>> that ARIN staff is permitted to use that would allow them to expedite
>> such information to the PPML, without "declaring an emergency".
>>>> It would seem that over-using this portion of the PDP would cause the
>> term 'emergency' to become useless, and also, would require a policy
>> draft to be submitted, which is senseless regarding an IP request.
>>>> If they wanted to, the ARIN Board could set up a mechanism to do
> something like this. However, I'm not sure they would, for a few
> reasons, such as:
>> - Balancing degree of participation with timeliness would be
> difficult. As you allude to, the amount of feedback on PPML can often
> be counted on one hand. OTOH, there are routinely 10x as many
> participants expressing an opinion at a public policy meeting, but those
> only occur twice a year.
> - The bottom-up policy process works well partly because it is limited
> to producing non-discriminatory policies that apply to the whole
> community. If we were to propose policy that applied to individual
> organizations, we would be playing a whole different ballgame with an
> entirely different set of requirements, legal and otherwise.
I can understand/appreciate that.
> So, I think we're best off using the policy process to set the overall
> policy and provide guidelines to ARIN staff, and then trusting them to
> implement the policy fairly. If necessary, they can always set up an
> internal procedure to escalate (appeals on) sensitive requests, all the
> way to the president or board level if necessary.
Please understand that I meant no disrespect to the staff whatsoever.
The idea of 'bypassing' certain aspects were meant to bypass
'processes', not 'people' or 'levels'. I expect you (and the staff,
Board, and President) know that. I did learn something though, just then.
>>> However, I definitely want to see transparency in how this policy is
>>> being used. We do have an existing mechanism for ARIN staff to report
>>> back to the community on how policies are working out: at every ARIN
>>> meeting staff (Leslie) gives a Policy Experience Report, detailing how
>>> one or more aspects of policy are actually working in practice, and
>>> suggesting changes where necessary. And, of course, she takes questions
>>> as well. So I'm thinking maybe we'd want to have staff report on the
>>> number of waivers requested and granted, and any interesting details of
>>> the circumstances surrounding the requests...
>>>>> I'm going overboard on a finer point on your proposal. Hopefully I'll be
>> at the next ARIN meeting to hear the Policy Experience Report. I do like
>> the transparency of the process. I specifically like the fact that
>> *anyone* can drum up ideas, throw them at the list, and see what
>> happens. The transparency, and bottom-up approach seems to be quite
>> effective (all the while spurring intriguing and very interesting
>> dialogue).
>>>> I agree wholeheartedly. You (plural) are ARIN, and you are the ones
> that make the policy process work. Please keep participating.
heh. cheers!
If anything, I'd like other 'lurkers' on the list to speak up, even if
it's to a single person (if you don't want to post to the list
directly). I've discussed with a number of other small outfits the
concerns of the v4 runout and their fear of IPv6.
It's the people who are reading but not posting that I'd personally like
to learn from.
Steve